Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:38:16.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Principles of Cost-Effective Resource Allocation in Health Care organizations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Milton C. Weinstein
Milton C. Weinstein
Affiliation:
Harvard School of public Health
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a method of economic evaluation that can be used to assess the efficiency with which health care technologies use limited resources to produce health outputs. However, inconsistencies in the way that such ratios are constructed often lead to misleading conclusions when CEAs are compared. Some of these inconsistencies, such as failure to discount or to calculate incremental ratios correctly, reflect analytical errors that, if corrected, would resolve the inconsistencies. Others reflect fundamental differences in the viewpoint of the analysis. The perspectives of different decision-making entities can properly lead to different items in the numerator and denominator of the cost-effectiveness (C/E) ratio. Producers and consumers of CEA need to be more conscious of the perspectives of analysis, so that C/E comparisons from a given perspective are based upon a common understanding of the elements that are properly included.

Type
Special Section: Alternative Methods for Assessing Technology, Part II
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , January 1990 , pp. 93 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Boyle, M. H., Torrance, G. W., Sinclair, J. C., & Horwood, S. P.Economic evaluation of neonatal intensive care of very-low-birth-weight infants. New England Journal of Medicine, 1983 308, 1330–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doubilet, P., Weinstein, M. C., & McNeil, B. J.Use and misuse of the term “cost-effective” in medicine. New England Journal of Medicine, 1985; 5, 293–309.Google Scholar
Drummond, M. F., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W.Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Hatziandreu, E. I., Koplan, J. P., Weinstein, M. C. et al. , A cost-effectiveness analysis of exercise as a health promotion activity. American Journal of Public Health, 1988, 78, 1417–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keeler, E. B., & Cretin, S.Discounting of life-saving and other nonmonetary effects. Management Science, 1983, 29, 300–06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, T. H., Fukui, T., Weinstein, M. C. et al. , Cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for left-main disease in patients with stable angina. Medical Decision Making, 1988, 8, 268–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luce, B. R., & Elixhauser, A.Estimating costs in the economic evaluation of medical technologies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1990, 6, 57–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mishan, E. J.Evaluation of life and limb: A theoretical approach. Journal of Political Economy, 1971, 79, 687–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oster, G., & Epstein, A. M.Cost-effectiveness of antihyperlipemic therapy in the prevention of coronary heart disease: The case of cholestyramine. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1987, 258, 2381–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, M., Schoenbaum, S. C., Tager, I. B. et al. , Benefit-cost analysis of antimicrobial prophylaxis in abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1983, 249, 1290–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stason, W. B., & Weinstein, M. C.Allocation of resources to manage hypertension. New England Journal of Medicine, 1977, 296, 732–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, M. S.Benefit-cost analysis for program evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1980.Google Scholar
Torrance, G. W., & Feeny, D.Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 5, 559–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinstein, M. C.Economic assessments of medical practices and technologies. Medical Decision Making, 1983, 1, 309–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinstein, M. C., Read, J. L., MacKay, D. N. et al. , Cost-effective choice of antimicrobial therapy for serious infections. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 1986, 1, 351–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinstein, M. C., & Stason, W. B.Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. New England Journal of Medicine, 1977, 296, 716–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinstein, M. C., & Stason, W. B.Cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent or treat coronary heart disease. Annual Review of Public Health, 1985, 6, 41–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willems, J. S., Sanders, C. R., Riddiough, M. A., & Bell, J. C.Cost-effectiveness of vaccination against pneumococcal pneumonia. New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, 303, 553–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed